Category Archives: Montana Politics

Tester’s Working. Rehberg’s On “Vacation”.

by D Gregory Smith

Where is Dennis Rehberg? Jon Tester’s been seen all over Montana- and heard all over tv and radio. Dennis Rehberg has yet- to my limited knowledge- to even appear off the cuff in an ad for himself. I find that suspicious. Where is he?

From The Montana Democrats:

Two maps* of the same state represented by two members of Congress tell a very different tale about their respective commitments to Montana:

Jon Tester’s 94 Events in 2012

Congressman Dennis Rehberg’s 14 Public Meetings in 2012

Montana Democratic Party Executive Director Ted Dick says Congressman Rehberg simply can’t live up to the standard of transparency and accountability Jon Tester has set in the U.S. Senate.

“The longer Congressman Rehberg stays in Washington, the more he forgets about his responsibility to Montana,” said Dick. “Congressman Rehberg won’t meet with Montanans in public because, after decades in politics, he is incabable of holding himself accountable to the people he’s supposed to serve.”

Tester’s meetings with Montanans focused on making college more affordable, creating small business jobs, and protecting clean air and water — all issues Tester has championed in the U.S. Senate.

Meanwhile, Congressman Rehberg has been at the center of a number of controversies in Congress — his Homeland Security land grab, a vote to raise middle class taxes, and attempts to end funding for Planned Parenthood.  He has held public listening sessions on NONE of these issues.

* These maps indicate Tester’s busy 2012 schedule in Montana, not including press interviews or political events, contrasted with Congressman Dennis Rehberg’s not-so-busy schedule.

Related articles

Rehberg Votes To Harass Gay People

by D Gregory Smith

The U.S. House yesterday purposelessly voted to stop the Obama administration from going against the Defense Of Marriage Act- even though, officially, the administration is still enforcing the law. Essentially- and obviously- this is an attempt to countermand Obama and Biden’s personal positions on the issue of marriage equality. From The Washington Blade:

In a 245-171 vote, House lawmakers approved the amendment, introduced by freshman Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas), as part of Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations legislation. The amendment reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act, may be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the amendment in effect does nothing because although the Justice Department is no longer defending DOMA in court, the Obama administration is still enforcing it.

“The Huelskamp Amendment is a solution in search of a problem,” Thompson said. “While there are multiple legal challenges to DOMA working their way through the federal courts, it is still binding. This amendment serves absolutely no purpose other than to score political points at the expense of gay and lesbian couples.”

After the Obama administration declared DOMA unconstitutional, the Justice Department filed legal briefs against the anti-gay law and sent Justice Department attorneys to argue against the statute in court during oral arguments. However, the administration continues to enforce the statute, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

According to Roll Call newspaper, Huelskamp had initially planned an amendment that would barred the use of funds for arguing against DOMA in court — which, if passed into law, would have had real impact. Huelskamp ultimately didn’t press forward with that amendment.

Huelskamp reportedly said he introduced the amendment not only because the Justice Department stopped defending DOMA in court, but also because of Vice President Joe Biden’s endorsement of same-sex marriage Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“The most immediate reason was the comments of the vice president of the United States,” Huelskamp was quoted as saying. “Stating his position is fine, but you tie that together with the issues with the lawsuit in California in which, essentially, the attorney general walked away from DOMA and said, ‘I’m not going to defend that.’”…

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said House Republicans “voted to tie the hands of the Obama administration with respect to their efforts to end discrimination against America’s families.”

“House Republicans continue to plant their feet firmly on the wrong side of history,” Hammill said. “Republican leaders refuse to bring up a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act that includes critical domestic violence protections for the LGBT community, and Speaker Boehner continues his legal boondoggle to use taxpayer funds to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act in court, including cases involving the families of our men and women of our U.S. Armed Forces.”

Hammill added, “These discriminatory actions only serve to advance fundamental unfairness in our society and are against the principles of liberty and equality that our country is built upon.” (emphases mine)

Harassment. Of course Denny Rehberg- who once told a friend of mine, “There aren’t any gay people in Yellowstone County”- voted for the measure. Click the roll call link above for votes. Full Blade story here.
Related articles

Marriage Equality And Montana

by D Gregory Smith

…John S Adams has an excellent article about it in the Great Falls Tribune. I loved how he brought attention to the Republican Platform Plank:

Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, who challenging Democratic Sen. Jon Tester in one of the nation’s most closely watch U.S. Senate races, reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“Montana’s state constitution says ‘Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state,’ and I agree,” Rehberg said in a statement.

Rehberg’s position is in keeping with a plank in the Montana Republican Party’s official platform which states that Montana Republicans “support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.”

The Montana GOP adopted that language after the Montana Supreme Court in 1997 struck down a state law making so-called “deviant sexual conduct” a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $50,000.

Legislative Republicans have repeatedly blocked attempts to remove that language from the Montana Code.

The 2011 session marked the first time an effort to repeal the unenforceable language from state law passed a legislative chamber, passing in the Senate but then dying in the House Judiciary Committee.

Read the full article (starring my pal, Jamee Greer) here.

My Dissent Explained

by D Gregory Smith

Last week, I posted about my disappointment with Steve Bullock’s position on marriage equality- and there were several comments here, on other blogs and on Twitter debating whether we (progressives) could afford to not get behind the presumed Democratic nominee.

I simply want to say here, as I have in some responses on other platforms, that I am responding in the spirit of creative dissent. I am not going to lean back, say “Oh well, maybe someday he’ll get it,” act like nothing happened and proceed with business as usual. I’ve come too far- we’ve come too far- to do that.

When I moved back to Montana I made myself a promise- that I would never lie about or be ashamed of my thoughts, feelings or beliefs- even when they were unpopular or provocative. I also promised that, as a middle-aged gay man, I would do everything I could to ensure the continued, progressively advancing sense of dignity for all LGBT persons in the state of Montana. I’ve dealt with too many suicidal kids, too many disowned sons and daughters, too many shame-filled, damaged people to trust that politicians will, on their own, work to protect us.

They have to be convinced. And in order to do that, we first have to get their attention.

Looks like we did. Now, until something further is done, I’m voting for the candidate who most represents my views, just as everyone should. I’m against the death penalty, want women to make their own choices about their health, support legal recognition of same-sex relationship recognition/protection, and am a fan of higher education and preserving a clean planet. I want healthcare and insurance companies to be reasonable and efficient- and treat people with mental illness and substance issues with dignity and respect. I want the justice system to be fair to all citizens. I want church and state to be separate. I want the poor and disadvantaged to be given every chance to succeed.

I’m also a big fan of dialog, not diatribe. And dialog is about the expression of opinion, listening and responding accordingly. That’s all I hoped to accomplish. I am not out to derail the Democratic Party- and I will absolutely vote for the Democrat for Governor in the fall. The alternatives are too creepy to think about. I just wanted to be heard on behalf of the thousands of LGBT Montanans in this state- many of whom hold my views.

That’s all.

Now, about that Republican platform plank….

Related articles

Steve Bullock Just Lost My Vote

by D Gregory Smith

Here’s why. From an article in Montana’s Lee newspapers on gubernatorial candidates and social issues:

The nine candidates were asked whether they favored changing Montana’s constitution to allow gay couples and lesbian couples to marry.

Miller opposed such a change, noting that 67 percent of Montanans voted in 2004 to say that “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

Hill, Livingston and Lynch, all Republicans, said, “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Bullock said, “I do not favor changing the constitution but would support legislative measures giving committed same-sex couples the opportunity to be together, free from discrimination.” This would include allowing a person to visit his or her partner in the hospital, he said.

Stapleton said he would oppose amending the constitution for that purpose, adding, “I think it’s healthy we support and cherish the traditional family.”

O’Hara said he would not change the constitution, adding: “I think our constitution adequately protects the lives of Montanans.”

Fanning said the ban on gay marriage should stand: “I believe that the sanctity of the family is the core of our society.”

Standing alone among all candidates, Margolis said it makes simple common sense to change the Montana Constitution to allow gay or lesbian couples to marry or form civil unions.

“The Montana Constitution guarantees fair and equal treatment to all people,” she said. “People should not be discriminated against, including gay and lesbian couples.”

I have to say I’m very disappointed in Steve Bullock. Ironically, he apparently is unaware of the pain and suffering of LGBT persons in his state because of legislative discrimination (including a sodomy law still on the books)- or he’s unwilling to acknowledge us in the face of staying safe and winning votes. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has done some amazing things, like already (2 years ago) extending LGBT partner visitation rights in most hospitals. What has Steve Bullock done for us lately ever? Not much. I’m taking the Bullock sticker off of my car.

At this point, my primary vote is going to Margolis.

Yeah, it’s that important.

Update: My Dissent Explained

HT:JG
Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/most-in-gop-governor-s-race-want-to-restrict-abortion/article_4988a480-9338-11e1-ab41-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1tikfD2MI

Related articles

Rehberg Taking Heat For Big Spending- From A Republican

by D Gregory Smith

From The Montana Democrats:

Multimillionaire Congressman Dennis Rehberg’s GOP primary opponent is raising some legitimate questions about the 11-year Congressman’s history of irresponsible government spending and power grabs.

According to the Lee Newspapers, Dennis Teske is frustrated that,

“Rehberg has voted for unconstitutional expansions of government power, like the Patriot Act in 2001, and plenty of government spending.”

Mr. Teske is right — Congressman Rehberg not only supported the Patriot Act twice, he co-sponsored his own controversial bill to give Homeland Security total “operational control” over the 100 northernmost miles of Montana.  Named the number one earmarker in the Tea Party Caucus, Congressman Rehberg also voted to raise the debt ceiling 10 times.

“Congressman Rehberg has been of part the problem in Washington for 11 long years,” said Ted Dick, Executive Director of the Montana Democratic Party.  “Montanans of all stripes are right to be upset with Congressman Rehberg’s support for the Patriot Act and his hypocrisy on the debt.  Unfortunately, playing games with our freedoms and tax dollars is part of the culture in Washington, and Congressman Rehberg is too out of touch to put Montana first.”

Here’s more:

HOMELAND SECURITY LAND GRAB:  Congressman Rehberg is sponsoring a bill that “would give the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders” [Great Falls Tribune, 9/21/11].  Critics said the bill was “exactly the kind of big government Montanans don’t tolerate” [Missoulian, 9/28/11].

REAL ID:  In 2005 Congressman Rehberg praised a plan to force all Montanans to get government ID cards saying, “something states should have been doing all along”  [Rehberg Press Release,5/6/05].

PATRIOT ACT:  Congressman Rehberg has long supported the controversial Patriot Act, something Jon Tester has consistently opposed  [HR 2975, Vote 386, 10/12/01; HR 3162, Vote 398, 10/24/01; HR 3199, Vote 414, 07/21/05; HR 3199, Vote 627, 12/14/05; S 2271, Vote 20, 03/07/06, HR 514, House Roll Call Vote 29, 2/10/11].

TEA PARTY’S TOP EARMARKER:  According to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, Congressman Rehberg  “takes the prize as the Tea Partier with his name on the most earmarks” [National Journal, 12/2/10].

10 VOTES TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING:  

  1. [S. 627, House Roll Call Vote #677, 7/29/2011]
  2. [HR 2560, House Roll Call Vote #606, 7/19/2011]
  3. [HCR376, Vote #158, 5/18/06]
  4. [HR 4297, Vote 67, 3/16/06; CQ, 3/16/06]
  5. [CRS, The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, 1/10; HCR95, Vote #149, 214-211, 4/28/05]
  6. [HRS 683, Vote 280, 6/22/04; CQ Today, 6/23/04; AP, 6/22/04]
  7. [SCR 95, Vote #198, 5/19/04]
  8. [S 2986, Vote 536, 11/18/04; Washington Post, 11/19/04]
  9. [CRS, The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, 1/10; HCR95, Vote #141, 216-211,4/11/03]
  10. [Congressional Research Service; S 2578, Vote 279, 06/27/02]
Related articles

“Top 10 GOP Attacks On Women’s Health”

by D Gregory Smith

Want some facts regarding women’s health issues and the GOP? The Montana  Democrats break it down:

One of the symbols of German Women's movement ...

One of the symbols of German Women's movement (from the 1970s) Deutsch: Ein Logo der deutschen Frauenbewegung (aus den 70er Jahren) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

National political observers have coined the term “War on Women” to describe Republican attacks on women’s health, ranging from plans to block access to contraception to massive cuts to cancer screening services.

But here in Montana, Republicans’ War on Women is far from a recent development.  In Congress, Dennis Rehberg has a long record irresponsible decisions on women’s health, and Republicans in the state legislature have been with him every step of the way, even going so far as to compare women to animals.  (Yes, really.)

To bring the story home, here are Montana Republicans’ Top Ten most extreme attacks on women’s health:  

10.  In Washington, Congressman Rick Hill voted multiple times to gut funding for access to contraception [Roll Call 290, HR4101, July 16, 1998 + Roll Call 493, HR4104, October 7, 1998 + Roll Call 494, HR4104, October 7, 1998].

9. Congressman Rehberg has earned the support of Foster Fries, the billionaire donor who said women use “asprin between their knees” as birth control.

8. Republican legislators pushed a bill to force women to view ultrasounds. Women’s health advocates called the measure an “offensive intrusion.”

7. Congressman Rehberg has been exposed by women’s health advocates for not understanding how funding for women’s health services works .

6.  Congressman Rehberg has voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which aims to make sure women are paid equally with men.  [Vote 768, 7/31/07; Vote 37, 1/27/09; CQ Votes]

5.  State Rep. Keith Regier compared pregnant women to “preg-tested” cattle during a discussion about family planning.

4.  In his first campaign for Congress, Hill attacked his opponent Nancy Keenan for being a single woman without children, though Keenan was unable to have children due to health reasons.

3.  Congressman Rehberg wrote two bills in the last year that would have completely ended funding for Title X, which helps women access preventative care like cancer screenings.

2.  When law student Sandra Fluke testified in opposition to plans to block access to contraception, state Rep. Krayon Kerns compared her to to a breeding dog.

1. Congressman Hill and Congressman Rehberg both want to let women pay higher health insurance premiums than men.

(For his part, Congressman Rehberg voted to overturn the law in the state legislature in the 1980s. [3r, HB 519, 2/18/87, House Final Status; and 1987 Women’s Lobbyist Fund News]  Congressman Hill used to profit off insurance premiums as an insurance company executive.)

Stutz: Daines Fundraising Is Politics-As Usual

by D Gregory Smith

Rob Stutz, Democratic candidate for United States Congress, announced today that Steve Daines, whose fundraising tactics were highlighted this week on the national radio program This American Life, represents politics-as-usual, not the best interests of the people of Montana. Daines, the presumptive Republican nominee in Montana’s US House race, has held numerous fundraising events in Washington DC requesting donations of $500, $1,000, and even $2,500 from PACs (political action committees) for special interest groups. Two of these events, one of which was featured in the radio program, were held in March 2012.

“Montanans want a new approach in Congress,” Stutz said. “We are looking for a Representative who will stand up to special interest groups, not a Representative who wants $2,500 to wine, dine, and rub elbows with special interest groups on Capitol Hill.”

Stutz does not accept any campaign money from special interest PACs and does not sign any pledges for special interest groups. The Stutz for Congress campaign posted a graph on www.RobStutz.com showing that Stutz has accepted $0 of special interest money and that Daines has accepted over $100,000 of special interest money through 2011. Fundraising reports for the first quarter of 2012 must be filed by April 15.

“I put people first in my campaign.” Stutz said that “Montanans want a Representative who walks the walk when it comes to working for people rather than for special interest groups. Abraham Lincoln said it best — government should be ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.'”

“While disappointing that Mr. Daines wants DC lobbyists to support his race, it is not surprising. Since announcing, Daines’ strategy has been to try and buy the US House seat.” Montana Democrats are pushing back against special interests — Stutz does not take special interest money or sign special interest pledges, Senator Tester has proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, and Attorney General Bullock has fought in court to uphold Montana’s law limiting special interest spending.

Stutz said, “If you are tired of the influence of special interests on Congress, support my campaign and send a message that enough is enough. Working together, we the people of Montana can get Congress back on track and working for us.” Stutz emphasizes that people of any financial means can and should have a voice in politics. Stutz for Congress provides a page on www.RobStutz.com that suggests free and low-cost grassroots ideas for anyone who wants to get involved in the race.

This American Life radio program (Daines discussed at 5:00) — http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/461.mp3

Stutz for Congress graph comparing PAC money receipts by Stutz and Daines through December 31, 2011 — http://robstutz.com/images/uploaded/PAC%20Money%20%28small%29.png

Stutz for Congress page providing free and low-cost ways to participate in the race — http://robstutz.com/pages/137/free_and_low_cost_ideas

Daines’ invitation for a March 22, 2012, fundraiser at the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of America Townhouse in Washington DC requesting $2,500 PAC money from hosts — http://politicalpartytime.org/party/30175/#invite

Daines’ invitation for a March 21, 2012, fundraiser at R.B. Murphy and Associates in Washington DC requesting $2,500 PAC money from hosts — http://politicalpartytime.org/party/30188/#invite

Daines’ invitation for a December 8, 2011, fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington DC requesting $1,000 PAC money from attendees — http://politicalpartytime.org/party/29809/#invite

Daines’ invitation for a June 21, 2011, fundraiser with Denny Rehberg at Eastgate in Washington DC requesting $1,000 per PAC — http://politicalpartytime.org/party/26972/#invite

Daines’ invitation for a March 2, 2011, fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington DC requesting $1,000 per PAC — http://politicalpartytime.org/party/25352/#invite

Related articles

Gallatin County Democrats Fundraiser Raises Some Great Questions

by D Gregory Smith

Sunday night I attended the Gallatin County Democrats Grand Opening Fundraiser at their new headquarters on Mendenhall in Bozeman. It was a great potluck- and crowded- which bodes well for the future of Democratic candidates in Bozeman this year.

Each candidate was allowed some time to speak. Pam Bucy and Monica Lindeen– both of whom I strongly support- shared energy, enthusiasm and common sense. They both need to be elected, in my very humble opinion.

I came to hear the Congressional candidates. I needed to see them and hear them in person. Their speeches were limited to 3 minutes, but all 4  had something important to say- mostly in contraposition to the Republican policy. Kim Gillan spoke about the need to control our own destinies. Franke Wilmer showcased her brilliant career as an academic and as an effective (as a Democrat could be last term) Montana Legislator. Dave Strohmaier shared a vision of the future which relied on non-discrimination (including LGBT persons!), progressive principles and conviction. And then there was Rob Stutz.

Stutz started by talking about taking back the Constitution- both federal and state- from the “hijack tactics of the Tea Party”. Excellent. And enthusiastic applause followed. Then he said something that made me stop.

“We have to have a plan to win in November. Do Democrats have a plan? We can’t wait until after the primary- we need a plan now!”

Like I said, I stopped. All of the ideas that were shared by the candidates were excellent ideas. The rhetoric was high. The enthusiasm inspiring. But Stutz is right. Where’s the plan? Because all the good ideas in the world don’t mean anything without a plan.

And without a plan, November could be disastrous for Democrats.

Related articles

Montana Family Foundation Candidate Survey

by D Gregory Smith

…is completely polarizing and just as completely predictable. As a public service, I wanted to put the whole shebang out on the internets. Now I’ll probably get letters protesting the word “shebang”.

Sigh.

Here’s the cover letter:

On behalf of all of us at Montana Family Foundation, let me congratulate you on your decision to run for public office. As a former state representative, I understand the sacrifices you are making during the campaign, and those that you will make throughout your term if you are fortunate enough to be elected (re-elected).

Montana Family Foundation is a non-profit, research, education, and advocacy organization, working to support, protect and strengthen Montana families.

In an effort to better educate your constituents on your positions related to family issues, we have enclosed our 2012 candidate survey. The results of this survey will be published in whole or in part on our web site (www.montanavoterguide.com), and in our printed voter guide, which will be distributed to roughly 150,000 Montana households.

*Please note: If you choose not to fill out the enclosed survey, we may determine your position on a given question using voting records, public statements you’ve made, your responses on other voter guides, or your party’s platform. If your position differs from that of your party on a given issue, we hope you will use this questionnaire to make that clear.

Please fill out the survey and return it in the enclosed envelope. The survey must be postmarked no later than Friday, March 23 to be included in our 2012 primary election voter guide. remember it must be signed to be valid.

Once again thank you for your time, and your commitment to the people of Montana.

Respectfully,
Jeff Laszloffy President/CEO

And the survey (reprinted in its entirety except for some basic identifying candidate stuff):

Please circle the response that most accurately reflects your position on the following issues. (SS=Strongly Support; S=Support; U=Undecided; O=Oppose; SO=Strongly Oppose)
  1. Public schools in Montana are: Over Funded Adequately Funded Under Funded
  2. Students should be allowed to recite the phrase “One Nation Under God” when saying the Pledge of Allegiance. SS S U O SO
  3. Parental choice should be expanded through tax credits to allow children to attend any school of their choice. SS S U O SO
  4. Montana should allow public charter schools. SS S U O SO
  5. Parents should be allowed to home school their children without additional state regulation. SS S U O SO
  6. Education – Sex education in public schools, should be based on “abstinence until marriage”. SS S U O SO
  7. Health – “Domestic partners” (i.e., cohabiting homosexual and heterosexual couples) should receive the same health care and employment benefits as married couples. SS S U O SO
  8. Health – Pharmacists should be forced to dispense birth control that works after fertilization (“Emergency Contraception”) even if it violates their conscience or religious beliefs. SS S U O SO
  9. Health – Anyone causing the injury or death of an unborn child (other than a doctor performing an abortion) should be subject to the same criminal penalties as they would be if the child were already born. SS S U O S
  10. Abortion – Abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances SS S U O SO
  11.  Abortion – Abortion should be prohibited, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. SS S U O SO
  12. In your opinion, are environmental regulations in Montana: Too Stringent About Right Not Stringent Enough
  13. Homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. SS S U O SO
  14. Anti-discrimination laws should be expanded to protect sexual orientation in the same way that race, creed, nationality, religion, and color are protected.
  15. Income Taxes in Montana are: Too High About Right Too Low
  16. Property Taxes in Montana are: Too High About Right Too Low
  17. Corporate Taxes in Montana are: Too High About right Too Low18. Your view on the statement: The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows all citizens to own firearms for self protection. SS S U O SO
  18. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal in Montana. SS S U O SO
  19. Global warming is a problem requiring increased regulation. SS S U O SO

Date
Candidate Signature
Surveys are invalid if not signed
Please mail original to:
Montana Family Foundation P.O. Box 485 Laurel, MT. 59044

406-628-1141 http://www.montanafamily.org http://www.montanavoterguide.com

SURVEY DEADLINE IS FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2012